| From: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mark Cave-Ayland <m(dot)cave-ayland(at)webbased(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations |
| Date: | 2005-05-17 17:15:25 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.56.0505171159480.20628@leary.csoft.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> I did some experimentation and concluded that gcc is screwing up
> big-time on optimizing the CRC64 code for 32-bit Intel. It does much
> better on every other architecture though.
>
> Anyone want to try it with non-gcc compilers?
Solaris 9 x86 - Sun Workshop 6 update 2 C 5.3, gcc 3.2.3
gcc -O1 crctest.c .251422
gcc -O3 crctest.c .240223
gcc -O1 crctest64.c .281369
gcc -O3 crctest64.c .631290
cc -O crctest.c .268905
cc -fast crctest.c .242429
cc -O crctest64.c .283278
cc -fast crctest64.c .255560
Kris Jurka
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-05-17 17:18:03 | Re: ARRAY[] with \'s is broken? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-05-17 17:11:27 | Re: Learning curves and such (was Re: pgFoundry) |